Triangulation Thinking: A New Angle on Problem Solving

Dr. Sharon L. Bender

January, 2005

What is Triangulation Thinking?

Triangulation is a process of building theory from multiple paradigms and layers. Laying the groundwork for triangulation requires defining the subject phenomenon. This initial phase delineates boundaries that both constrain and enable theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). The triangulation process is considered an extension of traditional strategies aimed at enhancing the potential insights available from existing data (Lewis & Grimes, 1990). Three major applications of my triangulation thinking approach are decision making, tool development, and research validity. Each of these are problem-solving ventures.

1. Decision Making (three equal sides)

 

The triangulation thinking model used for decision making comprises three sides with three sets of lines denoting that three layers of triangulation can take place along three sides. The image appears to twist and turn when viewed from various perspectives. This convolution represents the versatility of the model and the triangulation thinking design.

In this instance, I use the "three equal sides" approach in "triangulation thinking." The triple-sides model connotes three levels of further triangulation per its three sides. Each of the three parts on each side can be further broken down into three more parts.

I develop new tools first by using the common equilateral triangle to determine three equal sides. From that point I break down the three sides into three more parts each. That is the end of the triangulation. Further triangulation will confuse, complicate, and foil the simplicity of the triangulation thinking approach.

While individuals, organizations, and communities are all realms in which decision-making occurs, the organization is one realm in which decision-making transpires daily on a grand scale. An approach to using triangulation might be one in which teams brainstorm concepts and hone those that are approved by the team into a trio approach, which can be a "killer app" in decision-making, as I have applied it.

To explore the triangulation thinking approach in decision-making in an organizational setting consider a case in which as team leader I successfully applied it in a 1994 focus group. Once commissioned to develop a team to solve the greatest problem identified in an employee satisfaction survey, I found triangulation thinking to be a superior application.

The team comprised what I term "the right people." But to yield the best results they needed the "right approach" to decision-making. Using "round robin" each participant had a chance to identify issues related to the "upward communication" problem we identified. In my triangulation approach, I used three major steps in working with what the team offered:

1. Group similar concepts. 

2. Reduce to three groups containing the most applicable issues. 

3. Determine a title that represents each group.

Using the triangulation thinking approach, my task team determined that the causes for the upward communication complaint were that managers were lacking an open door policy, employees were lacking solution oriented grievances, and the organization was lacking leadership in producing a resolution policy. I titled the groups Open Door Policy, Solution-Oriented Policy, and Resolution Policy. It was not very difficult at that point to develop a model in which to implement these new policies.

 

From left: Emilia, Mary, Sharon, Michael, and Toni (1994)

As featured in Quality Matters (1994), my team developed the Management/Employee Communication Agreement (MECA) and rolled it out to the organization for its leadership in launching the new policies and procedures for our business unit. The rollout meant that the organization would promote the new resolution norm, managers would have a compassionate open door policy, and employees would agree to bring solutions rather than mere problems to management.

This agreement approach was designed to reduce or eliminate the fear factor that the team noted was an issue. The triangulation approach together with arranging the right team players as noted in my "bottom line team" (Bender, 2004) development approach are credited for the ability of my Upward Communication task team to be successful in reaching a decision in a single meeting. The article about my team originated from an earlier article for which its intention was to address "decision-making tools in solving complicated organizational problems" (Bender, 1999). The article was slated to address the problem resolution process of "The Redeem Team," a group I developed that was later addressed in my "Bottom Line Team" article.  

I have been personally impressed with Sharon's ability to bring together a TQ team of coworkers and successfully develop a solution to a significant communication problem. — Mike Bost, Regional Sales Manager, AlliedSignal.

I have served as a team member of the MECA (Management/Employee Communication Agreement) focus group in 1994 at AlliedSignal along with the team leader, Sharon L. Bender. In working through the problem in our meeting Sharon used a form of triangulation to categorize the issues presented. As a result, we rolled out MECA to the organization to launch the new manner in which employees would communicate upward. The resolution meant that managers would have a compassionate open door policy, employees would agree to bring solutions rather than mere problems to management, and the business unit would support installation of the agreement. — Emilia Remirez, Team Member, AlliedSignal

Figures 1 & 2 depict some of my sketches as developed during our brainstorming session in 1994. We used a "round robin" technique so that everyone had an opportunity to offer their thoughts. I captured the major concepts using a triangulation process. In the final stages, I was able to cull the most significant ideas that emerged until we could easily see the outcome was MECA (Management/Employee Communication Agreement).

 

Figure 1. Brainstorming Stage	Figure 2. Final Stage

 

Figure 3. Triangulation Model Created 3/8/2001 for DETC

Figure 3 provides a glimpse into how I've used the triangulation approach in the decision-making process for another purpose. As a DETC (Distance Education and Training Council) accreditation evaluator in 2001, I produced this graphic in an effort to present how the school under evaluation could benefit from a "Triangulation Competency Model," comprising three distinct competencies in all its degree programs: 1) capstone project, 2) testing or portfolio assessment, and 3) competency essays in its "domains" as I referred to them.

In evaluating the subject school to reveal its readiness for DETC accreditation, it was my determination that a weakness in the respective degrees that the school offered was the absence of these three beneficial evaluation elements.

Triangulation has been a model development approach that I have used for many years. Three major applications of my triangulation thinking approach are decision making, tool development, and research validity. Examples are to evaluate three equal sides, find two points to plot a third, and to perform an interpretive analysis as featured in this article.

Triad Assessment is one of my models that further explains how these approaches are applied. Pattern thinking is another.

2. Tool Development (two points to plot a third)

 

In this instance, I use the common use of triangulation in which what is known or discovered about two points is used to plot a third, hybrid point. Triangulation can mean one individual communicating relationships between two other individuals. Triangulation is a process of navigating. That might be to navigate a problematic situation. This device enables problem solving and decision making and it offsets polarization, finding a means to meet in the middle.

Redeveloping or developing new tools and models is not very difficult or time consuming. For example, I developed the Q3 Inquiries model in which I introduced a third research methodology, creating a trio of methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, and quasitative). Tool development may also enlist the interpretive analysis (research validity) perspective of triangulation thinking, but in this instance I used the "two points to plot a third" approach in "triangulation thinking." In another example, I developed SOR Analysis by triangulating SWOT Analysis, which has traditionally comprised four components (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). I plotted what is known about the concepts of weaknesses and threats and developed these into "roadblocks." In my Tri-Solution model I honed the many aspects of problem solving. Most often there are five steps involved. I plotted what is known about some concepts and developed a hybrid, which no matter what five element model I used, I was able to hone to the same three element model.

To explore the triangulation thinking approach in tool development a bit further, an example may be viewed at Hans H. Diebner's Web site where Hans and Inge Hinterwaldner sketched out a design in which two points were used to plot or merge into a third. They plotted two cultures (hermeneutics and physics) and arrived at a third culture. Inside that third culture is an example of the interpretational analysis process that I refer to as "data recycling." The couple merges "bringing in the world" with "autopoeisis" (a theory of what life is, developed by Chilean scientists, Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela). I particularly like this model in that it is a case of "philosophy meets physics." I believe this to be an important underpinning in tool or model development. My tools are based on a bit of philosophical thinking with physics (the facts) thrown in, or they are a product of my own philosophy based on what is known, the essence of using two points to plot a third.

3. Research Validity (interpretive analysis)

 

In this instance, I use triangulation in an interpretive analysis device to accomplish research validity. Interpretation of the data collected from the subjects of the inquiry is open to bias when not triangulated. This objective of triangulation is perhaps its most common use. In research, triangulation enables overcoming lack of validity. This shape represents the interconnectivity of the three kinds of data or the three ways that the data can be interpreted. This design represents the interweaving of thought associated with triangulation in research.

Triangulation in research has long been an application for achieving validity and generalizability in findings. Applying three types of approaches to data collection and analysis yields widely respected results that contribute to the generalizable knowledge. Triangulation might be an interpretation of extant works, the results of a survey, and analysis of live observation. If the findings converge from these three approaches validity is accomplished. I once used what I have termed the OIL Approach consisting of "observations, interviews, and the literature." This is one example of a triangulation approach in conducting research.

Triangulation in research refers to the combination of theories, data sources, or methods in the study of a single phenomenon to converge on a single construct or "takeaway," a term we used often in strategic planning. Some scholars argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies should not be triangulated. I strongly believe in triangulated methodologies, encouraging a "mathematical certainty for success," as I have phrased it.

To explore the triangulation thinking approach in research validity in a doctoral dissertation, my study published in 2000 is an example. I used triangulation to apply three distinctly different approaches to data collection and analysis of the findings (existing studies, the literature, and the input from a group of participants), contributing strength to my conclusions. Whereas the data was collected from three different sources, each was examined under an interpretive (hermeneutic cycle) approach. By using three different sources for data collection and analysis I "triangulated the results," contributing validity to the findings. Using more than one research method or data collection technique taps different dimensions of the problem. In my dissertation study I used the "interpretive analysis" approach in "triangulation thinking."

Application

It is difficult to say when my journey began in exploring the triangulation concept. I've been using this paradigm for many years for which only some of my approaches and applications have been featured here. An application for triangulation thinking that I started working on in 2003 is a book idea that I titled, "Triangulation Thinking: A New Angle on Leadership." This is an idea I had been considering since taking TQL training in the 1990s. The following is some documentation on the introduction and development of this book idea. Listed among my files are components of the book along with a logo design that I asked a graphic designer to create for me as noted in Figure 4.

 

Sun, 7 Dec 2003   (Additional exchange with MS after sending a proposed outline to share my book idea.)

Here's what I had in mind so that areas are not redundant and the structure clearly sets up the facets of leadership as they have to do with realms, followed by what is triangulation thinking. We have to keep this simple and digestible.   With this book boil things down to just the three most important tools, how we define leadership, and applying a new angle to it in using triangulation thinking.   To match the title, ultimately there needs to be a way to clearly answer the questions:   1) What is leadership? 2) What is triangulation thinking: 3) How is triangulation thinking applied to leadership?

This book idea remains a part of my explorations into the many applications of triangulation thinking. Whereas I hold the copyright to this title for its inception, I have also considered expanding this topic to account for the trio of operators (commanders), the leader, instructor, and manager combo.

Sources

Bender, S. L. (1999, November). The Redeem Team: An autobiographical account of how one team of novices solved an organization's most daunting problem in a single meeting. Unpublished Article. 

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, pp. 535-50.

Lewis, M.W., & Grimes, A. J. (1999). Metatriangulation:  Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management, The Academy of Management Review, Mississippi State, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 672-90.

Quality Matters. (1994, January). The focus is on focus groups. Performance. AlliedSignal, EM.